Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P. Anuradha Reddyand Anr. vs P. Kalpana And Ors. on 13 April, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)ALD678, 1998(4)ALT4
Author: K.B. Siddappa
Bench: K.B. Siddappa
ORDER
D. Reddeppa Reddi, J
1. These three writ petitions have been directed against the order dated 6-2-1998 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.8037/97, setting aside the selections made by the A.P. College Service Commission, Hyderabad (for short 'the Commission') to the posts of B.Ed., Lecturers pursuant to advertisement No.5/97 dated 14-7-1997 at the instance of the first respondent, viz., Srat. Kalpana (the applicant in OA No.8037/97 hereinafter referred to as the applicant) and directing the commission to consider her case for appointment to the post of Lecturer (B.Ed.) in case she conies up for selection according to merit and if she is otherwise eligible and qualified for appointment. W.P.Nos.5039 and 6298 of 1998 have been filed by the selected candidates with the leave of this Court as they have not been impleaded as respondents in OA No.8037/97 and W.P.No 5706 of 1998 has been filed by the Commission.
2. We shall, in brief, state the fects that led to the filing of these writ petitions. The Commission by its advertisement No.5/97 dated 14-7-1997 invited application for the posts of Lecturers in Education as well as other disciplines. In the cases on hand we are concerned with the recruitment to the posts of Lecturers in Education only. For the said posts, the advertisement prescribed the following qualifications:
"1, First or second class P.O. Degree in the concerned subject or subjects.
2. High Second Class in M.Ed., with 55% and above.
3. Qualified in NET/SLET in Education.
4. Any candidate possessing M.Phil/Ph.D., before 31-12-1993 are also eligible for the above posts.
5. Desirables : M.Phil/Ph.D., in Education."
The Government also prescribed written test as well as oral interview, as contemplated under A.P. College Service Commission (Manner of selection of persons for the appointment to the posts of Teachers) Regulations 1987 (for short 'the Regulations'), approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O. Ms.No. 157 Education (UE) Department dated 10-6-1987. Regulation 7 thereof prescribes the manner of selection as under :
"Manner of Selection to various posts.
(i) Direct recruitment: For all categories of posts other than principal, Professor and Reader, there shall be a written test in the subjects concerned as prescribed by the Commission and an oral test. The weightage for written test marks in the qualifying examinations and oral test shall be as follows :
(a) Written test conducted by A.P. College Service Commission 40 marks
(b) Weightage marks for the academic record of the candidate, marks awarded on a graded hand taking into account the marks and class obtained besides additional academic qualifications if any 50 marks
(c) oral test 10 marks ........."
The petitioners in W.P.Nos.5309/98 are postgraduates in Psychology. They also possess high second class/first class degrees in M.Ed., In addition, they have passed State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) conducted by the Commission. The petitioner in W.P.No.6298/ 98 is also a post graduate in English from Kakathiya University. He had M.Ed., degree from Annamalai University. In addition, he has passed National Eligibility Test (NET) in 1994 conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The applicant is a post graduate in Philosophy. She too has M.Ed., degree. In addition, she obtained M.Phil before 3-12-1997. Thus, all of them possessed the requisite educational qualifications so as to apply for the posts advertised by the Commission. Infact, they submitted their applications. They also appeared for the written examination. Call letters were sent asking them to appear for interview. At that stage, the Commission decided, as a matter of principle, to allot 10 marks out of 50 marks ear-marked under Regulation 7(i)(b) towards weightage for the academic record to the candidates, who have passed NET or SLET, on par with those possessing Ph.D., degree. Interviews were held as scheduled and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.5039 and 6298 of 1998 were selected. Accordingly, the Unit Officer was instructed to issue them the orders of appointment. At that stage the applicant, coming to know that she was not selected, filed OA No.8037/97 before A.P. Administrative Tribunal for a declaration that awarding of 10 marks to the candidates who have passed NET or SLET is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Regulation?. She has not chosen to implead the selected candidates as parties to the application stating that their addresses were not known. The Commission filed a detailed counter-affidavit justifying the selection made by it. However, the Tribunal accepted the plea of the applicant and allowed her application. Hence, these writ petitions by the Commission as well as the selected candidates.
3. There is no doubt whatsoever that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice as the selection of petitioners in W.P,No.5039/98 has been set-aside without notice to them. On that score, we would have straightaway set-aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after giving notice to all the selected candidates but for the request of all learned Counsel to decide the matter hereitself, we have acceded to their request as there is no dispute about facts and the issue for consideration is only with regard to the meaning and interpretation of the term "academic qualifications" used in Clause (i)(b) of Rule 7 of the Regulations.
4. All the learned Counsel confined their submissions to the only question whether the passing of NET or SLET can be regarded as academic qualification for the purpose of awarding weightage marks ear-marked under Clause (i)(b) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W,P.5039/98, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6298/98, Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the Commission and the learned Government Pleader for School Education strongly support the decision of the Commission awarding 10 marks for the candidates who have passedNET or SLET. In opposition, Sri S. Ramachandm Rao, learned senior Counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri L. Ravichandar, learned Counsel for Osmania University Research Scholars Association, who filed W.P.No.8493/98 to implead itself as respondent No,5 in W.P.No.5039/98 assail the decision of the Commission so as to sustain the impugned order.
5. The Apex Court had an occasion to trace the history of NET and SLET in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh, . It is recorded therein :
"In 1986 the UGC appointed a Committee of eminent men in the field of education under the chairmanship of Prof. R. C. Mehrotra to examine the structure of emoluments and conditions of service of University and college teachers and to make recommendations in this behalf "having regard to the necessity of attracting and retaining talented persons in the teaching profession and providing advancement and opportunities to teachers of Universities and colleges ......... The Mehrotra Committee recommended the following minimum qualification for the post of lecturer:
(i) Qualifying at the National Test conducted for the purpose by the UGC or any other agency approved by the UGC.
(i) Master's degree with atleast fifty five per cent marks or its equivalent grade and good academic record.
The minimum qualifications mentioned above should not be relaxed even for candidates possessing M.Phil., Ph.D., qualification at the time of recruitment. (para 9) A conference of Vice-Chancellors was held under the auspices of the UGC in 1989. Among the major recommendations made by the conference was one that related to the "implementation of qualifying test for recruitment of lecturers." The recommendation read thus:
"The National level test to determine the eligibility for lecturers be conducted. When the State Government conducts such tests, while accrediting them caution be exercised. It was also suggested that the test is regional languages be also conducted." (para 10) Following up on the Mehrotra Committee report the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India wrote to the UGC on 17th June, 1987 on the subject or revision of pay-scales in Universities and Colleges, and other measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education......... For our purposes, the relevant portion of the scheme reads thus:
"Only those candidates who, besides fulfilling the maximum academic qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer, have qualified in a comprehensive test, to be specially conducted for the purpose, will be eligible for appointment as Lecturers. The detailed schemes for conducting the test including its design, content and administration will be worked out and communicated by the UGC." (para 11) Keeping in view the said recommendations, the UGC in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 26(1)(e) read with Section 14 of the UGC Act made the Regulations called The University Grants Commission (Qualifications Required of a Person to be Appointed to the Teaching Staff of a University and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 (for short 'the UGC Regulations, 1991) superseding "The University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the Teaching Staff of a University and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 1982 (for short 'the UGC Regulations, 1982')
6. It is necessary to state here that as per UGC Regulations, 1982 the minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of college lecturers were (i) an M.Phil, degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work; and (ii) good academic record with at least second class (in the seven-point scale) Master's degree tn a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University, whereas the UGC Regulations, 1991 prescribed the following minimum qualifications for the post of lecturers in Universities and Colleges:
"Good academic record with atleast 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Master's level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University.
Candidates besides fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by UGC; CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC."
The UGC Regulations, 1991 were notified on 19th September, 1991 in the Gazette of India. They are made applicable to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognised by the UGC in consultation with the University concerned under clause (f) of Section 2 of the UGC Act and every institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act. These Regulations have been upheld by the Apex Court in Raj Singh 's case (supra). Therein, dealing with the need for introduction of NET or SLET, the Apex Court observed :
"...... The need for such test is demonstratedby the reports of the commissions and committees of educationists referred to above which take note of the disparties in the standards of education in the various Universities in the country. It is patent that the holder of a post-graduate degree from one University is not necessarily of the same standard as the holder of the same post-graduate degree from another University. That is the rationale of the test prescribed by the said Regulations.
7. By Circular dated 10-2-1993 the UGC granted exemption from appearing in the eligibility test to the following categories :
1. All candidates who have passed UGC/ CSIR JRF examination.
2. All candidates who have already been awarded Ph.D., degree.
3. All candidates who have already been awarded M.Phil. degree upto 31-3-1991.
4. All candidates who will submit their Ph.D., thesis upto 31-12-1993.
By Circular dated 15-6-1993 in respect of candidates felling in category 3 exemption from appearing in the eligibility test was extended to candidates who had been awarded M.Phil., degree upto 31 -12-1992. By a notification dated 21-6-1995, the UGC Regulations, 1991 have been amended and the following proviso has been added below the requirement regarding clearing the eligibility test for appointment to the post of Lecturer:
"Provided that candidates who have submitted Ph.D. thesis or passed the M.Phil., examination by 31-12-1993 are exempted from the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC."
The validity of these circulars was upheld by the Apex Court in University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhaiy .
8. It is clear from UGC Regulations, 1991 and the Circulars ref erred to supra thatwim regard to recraimicnt to the post of college lecturers the qualification of possessing MPhil., degree is dispensed with w.e.f. 19-9-91 and in lieu thereof clearing NET or SLET Is introduced. To be more specific, a candidate seeking appointment to the post of a lecturer w.e.f. 19-9-91 need not possess Ph.D., degree or M.Phil., degree. It is enough if he or she has cleared the test conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar tests accredited by the UGC. These tests arc called NET or SLET. It is significant to note that those candidates who acquired PH.D. degree or M.Phil., degree after 1-1-1994 have also to clear NET or SLET since exemption from acquiring eligibility in NET or SLET has been granted to only to those who possessed Ph.D., or M.Phil., before 31-12-1993. It is, therefore, apparent that UGC has decided to give more credence to NET or SLET rather than Ph.D., or M.Phil.
9. There is no dispute that NET will be conducted by UGC and SLET by the Commission and syllabus is prescribed therefor. Yet, the Tribunal has held that they cannot be regarded academic qualifications. Its reasons for such conclusion run as under:
"The word "academic" as defined in Oxford Dictionary means, scholarly of a University etc., and the word 'Academical' means, belonging to a college or University. 'Academician' means, a member of an Academy, especially of the Royal Academy of Arts; place of study, society for cultivating literature, art, music, science etc., As per Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, the word 'academic means' of the philosophical school of Plato; of an academy or University, scholarly. Item (b) under Regulation 7 stipulates allotment of marks for the academic record and for any additional academic qualification only and not for any other qualification or skill. It, therefore, follows (hat the authority that is evaluating the marks under item (b) under Regulation 7 has a limited area and the performance of a candidate based on his academic record or the academic qualification alone has to be givenweightage. Any other record or qualification acquired by a candidate cannot be evaluated nor marks awarded under this particular item. Allotting 10 marks for NET/SLET on par with Ph.D. in our considered view, is therefore not for the academic performance or nor can it be equated as an academic qualification as NET/SLET is not a degree or certificate awarded by an academic institution. NET/SLET examination is a qualifying examination conducted by the competent agency before selecting or appointing a candidate for the post of Lecturers."
10. We arc unable to agree with the above reasoning. The reasons are obvious. NET or SLET arc not held by any outside agency. As already noted, NET is held by the UGC and SLET by the Commission. Both of them are expert bodies in the field of education. There is and there can be no reason whatsoever to doubt their capacity to prescribe necessary syllabus to test the ability of those who aspire to become college lecturers. Further, these tests have been prescribed in substitution for Ph.D. or M.Phil., degree conducted by different universities in the country, hi such view of the matter, if due weightage is not given those who have passed NET or SLET it is sure to result in great injustice to them.
11. The Tribunal itself found that NET or SLET are qualifying examinations. This very finding is enough to conclude that these tests have to be necessarily treated on par with Ph.D., or M.Phil. It follows, the conclusion of the Tribunal that they cannot be regarded as academic qualifications is self contradictory.
12. In Basanli v. Regional Inspeclress of Girls'Schools, Gorakhpur, AIR 1987 All. 191, a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court had an occasion to deal with the scope and amplitude of'academic qualification'. Therein, K. J. Shelly, C.J., as he then was, speaking for the Court, observed:
"It will be seen that the term academic qualification is wide enough to include the entire range of attributes or qualities which make a person eligible to do a certain act or to hold office. Those attributes or qualities may be inherent in the person or legally necessary to render him eligible to fill an office or perform a public duty."
"The term 'academic qualification is not to be restricted just to degrees or diplomas possessed by a teacher. There is no discernible compulsion either in the language or context of the Statute to ascribe such a narrower meaning to the term.... While diplomas or degrees in the subject are undoubtedly academic qualifications, they are not exhaustive of the qualifications pertaining to academic posts...." (para 9) The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Raj Singh 's case (supra) in the following terms:
".... The word 'qualifications', as used in clause (e), is of wide amplitude and would include the requirement of passing a basic eligibility test prescribed by the UGC. The word 'Qualifications' in clause (c) is certainly wider than the word 'qualification' defined in Section 12A(2)(d), which in expressly stated terms is a definition that applies only to the provisions of Section 12A. Were this definition of qualification, as meaning a degree or any other qualification awarded by a University, to have been intended to apply throughout the Act, it would have found place in the definition section, namely, Section 2." (para 20) In the light of the above, there can be little doubt that the way the Tribunal understood the term 'academic qualifications' is erroneous.
13. The matter needs examination from another angle also. As per clause (i)(b) of Regulation 7, 50 out of 100 marks have been allocated for academic record of the candidate. It is the admitted case of the parties here to that out of 50 marks, the commission decided to allot 40 marks for basic qualification, i.e., M.A, or M.Ed., 10 marks for PH.D., NET or SLET and 5 marks for M.Phil. Thus, the Commission evolved a uniform policy or procedure for allocating 50 marks under different heads. We are unable to appreciate how an exception can be taken to such a policy or procedure. In this context, it is apt to refer to the following observation of Apex Court in Secretary (Health) Department of Health andF.W. v. Or. Anita Puri, :
"..... When the Public Service Commission is required to select some candidates out of a number of applicants for certain posts, the sole authority and discretion is vested with the Commission. The Commission is required to evolve the relative fitness and merit of the candidate and then select candidates in accordance with such evaluation. If, for that purpose the Commission prescribes marks for different facets and then evalutes the merit, the process of evaluation cannot be considered to be arbitrary unless marks allotted for a particular facet is on the face of it excessive....." (para 9)
14. We also consider it appropriate to refer to the following note of caution stuck by the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, for the tribunals or Courts while deciding the matters like the present one.
".... Boards of appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them, are challenged before Courts, normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be....." (para 13)
15. Thus, viewed from any angle, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal is totally unjustified in interfering with theselections made by the Commission. Therefore, the writ petitions must succeed. They are, accordingly, allowed. However, we make no order as to costs.